Vocabularisation

Perhaps some complex vocabulary, terminology or combinations of such can seem confusing. Lets take into consideration the components of literacy comprehension.

Any language is virtually a method of transferring ideas and thoughts into a commonly accepted outlined form of communication that should be decipherable, no matter how complex, using territorially commonly taught knowledge. I tend to think the English language is universal and adaptable. As long as the individual combinations of literary characters (words, if I'm using them correctly (even as I'm attempting to excessively emphasize the potential complexity of potential combinations of formerly referenced WORDS)  are within your vocabulary (you know what they mean)(or more simply; you understand the individual words), and if you attain the sufficient degrees of intellectual capabilities, you should be able to understand virtually any adaptation and combination of words, as long as they are structured to at least a moderately decent degree in relation to the standards of the universal outline (grammar (including such things as brackets, or brackets within brackets)) of that particular form of alpha-communication (language), and therefore you would theoretically be capable of understanding and comprehending almost anything you read (since most literary fits within that mentioned degree), which would then therein even include this very long, complicated, and potentially ironically grammatically incorrect sentence! More simply; if you’re smart enough, you should be able to understand pretty much anything written clearly. But, since this is perspectually, a theoreticality, I very well admit that I could be incorrect about that. 

As examplatory references of potential adaptational uses of language descriptions within this post, some words are technically spelled incorrect. They are underlined as a spelling mistake, but considering the relevant relation, under certain circumstances where it is practical, disregardance seems logical. As far as my common textual communication goes, there will likely be other similarly incorrect words. There might be technically correct adaptations of these words, with the same intended meaning as the technically incorrect ones, but if that's the case I couldn't think of, or didn't know the technically correct word. As long as the adaptations (extensions) of the words make sense -judging by regular common acceptance- then it should be virtually just as sufficient and understandable by anyone capable of comprehension of the fairly simple concept. Therefore, theoretically you should be able to adapt any base word using extensions (or whatever the technical term may be) of words.

That’s the indistinct boundary to any language, being the currently known and commonly accepted virtual database of vocabularisation.